From: Ad 

George Sherwood wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:16:52 +0100, Ad wrote:
>
>> There was no prof wrt France & The UK conspiring with Israel over Suez
>> either until after the event. However most noted the rather
>> "coincidental" simultaneous attacks & other mutually
supportive actions
>> inc diplomatic actions.
>
> Nothing is proved unit it is proved, so what.  And Saddam used WMD before
> and lied about it before.  He must have been doing it in 2003.  Wait,
> that wasn't true.
>

Humm....People denied the Franco-UK & Israeli connection wrt Suez &
then finally it was so obvious that they had to admit it some time later.

WRT Saddam & chemical weapons (poverty is a WMD, sanctions are a WMD
etc) that was an assertion which many many many disputed given known
knowns.

This will come out in the wash at the time when people think "oh it's
just of interest to historians".


>> So this appears mucho like Suez except that the all the western powers
>> were in on it, none sent troops (making do with diplomatic
>> obstructionism) & Nasrallah rather than Nasser was the target.
>>
>> There are far too many coincidences for it to all be coincidental.
>
> This is your story and you are sticking to it.  If you would have just
> said, "In my opinion ....", then no problem.  You stated
something as a
> fact which isn't even close to proved except in your mind.
>

Hum. We shall see what slips out from the Winograd committee though I am
sure the US has demanded prior viewing & removal rights to any
evidence.


>> More will come out. I have little doubt of that. But hey you'd dispute
>> that coz MRD.
>>
>> Initially you took the position that there was no prior planning. The PM
>> of Israel has disabused you of that notion.
>>
>> There was no consultation between Israel & the US over disarming
>> Hizbullah etc. prior to the pretextual event. The PM of Israel has
>> disabused you of that notion.
>
>
> Wrong answer.  I never took that position.  Back when you first mentioned
> it, my position was who cares, there are many things planned for all the
> time.
>
>

Suez was planned. The German invasion of Poland was planned. The whole
point of a pretextual war is that it's planned.

So is the US planning for a pre-textual war?

OK then instead of the "US & Israel conspired" how about the
"US & Israel planned for a pretextual war with the aim of
disarming Hizbullah
& removing it from the Israeli border" ?

In the same way that "Germany & the Soviet Union planned a
pretextual war with the aim of dividing Poland".


>> Meanwhile back on the farm....
>>
>> http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=20166
>>
>> "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Wednesday he opposed making
>> public testimony given to a high-level inquiry into last year's Lebanon
>> war against Hezbollah.
>>
>> "Our position is to refrain - at this stage - from releasing testimony
>> heard by the Winograd committee because this would result in real damage
>> to Israel's vital interests," his office said in a statement.
>>
>> "This is a tangible and immediate concern to the country's security,
>> foreign affairs and to people and bodies which dealt and continue to
>> deal with these concerns.""
>>
>> I wonder why......gee....come on Ehud...the last pieces of the jigsaw
>> please.....
>>
>> I wonder which foreign ally (or allies) might be embarrassed & why.
>
> Your statement not his.  You make leaps like this all the time.  Security
> issues don't always equal embarrassments. The are truly somethings that
> are in a country's security interest.  But not for you and Israel, I
> understand that.
>

No I don't think you do. This is not a leap anymore than describing the
contours of the sole missing piece from a jigsaw is a leap.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5